I wondered why the article was such a shrill diatribe until I read who the author was. No wonder there is no balance in the point of view he puts forward.

Howard never gave the electorate any indication that Workchoices would happen before the previous election, imagine what the Lib's have in store for us all if they get back in this time. My bet is bascially outlawing unions altogether and changing welfare so that if a welfare recipient refuses a job, no matter how bad the pay, conditions or safety are, they will get their payment cut off. I always thought Howard dreamt of taking Australia back to the mythical golden era of the 1960s but it is now clear he is more keen on the 1860s.

Whether you are pro- or anti-union, the idea of Australian society without unions should give you pause for thought. Throughout Australian history unions have fought for, gained and protected rights for working people which apply to ALL in the workforce, not just their members. I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that there is no intimidation, harrassment, underpayment, exploitation, safety concerns or unfair treatment in the workplace. Without unions to bring these issues to light and support workers enduring such things, these kind of conditions will become the norm.

Most workers in Australia appreciate having weekends, annual and sick leave, workers comp cover, a safe workplace and protections of their few remaining workplace rights. All of these are in place because of the Union movement.

I am a professional with post-grad qualifications and sought-after skills, but I still don't think I have any chance of "bargaining" on an equal footing with any boss other than perhaps in small business. I don't need a union to look after my interests because I have choices and opportunities in the workplace, but I am aware that thousands of minimum-wage, "unskilled" workers and those whose skills are not highly sought do not have such luxury - their only hope for fair treatment comes from their union standing up for their rights.

One of the things you first learn in consulting is that whenever you make a change, you have to manage the impacts of that change. If you don't, then things can get out of hand very quickly, and turn something that could have been very successful into something which is a complete failure.

This is the root of the problem for Howard and Co - they lumped a whole bunch of legislation on the electorate and didn't manage the change. The negativity surrounding this legislation is, to a large (but not complete) sense, unnecessary.

If people were educated in what the changes actually meant (rather than the "spin" of the unions), people were taught how to negotiate, and all of the other things which could have been done to ease the transition, then this wouldn't have turned into the schmozzle that it is.

It's a shame. Further deregulation of the work force is a good thing, but without managing it, you're creating more problems than you're solving. As demonstrated by what's currently happening in this country.

BN : You are thinking that politics is a business transaction it is not. You can manage change within a business because you are not confronted with outright opposition to the proposed changes - opponents are eased / pushed out. Business tends to "educate" in a similar way to communists, sort of see it my way or move to Siberia.

A better analogy is an inter business transaction, say a take over, in which you can be confronted with a union style campaign, recall the Qantas buyout.

You say that the union campaign has been misleading, can you say specifically which bit ? Or are you just echoing the Government line ?

Actually western red, I'm thinking about internal changes, like a new IT system, or a new policy. You can have "outright opposition" within the business from users of that system or people who are affected by that policy.

I know this because my work is implementing payroll systems, where I deal with entrenched business processes (which cause more trouble than they're worth) and improve them with technology. But unless the new process/system is correctly implemented and the change correctly managed, then the payroll people and/or the people being paid by the system can fight against you, which leads to the problems that I mentioned in my previous post.

So it's not about standing and delivering: That's been tried and consistently fails. The better way to do it is to consult and to manage the change.

And as for union campaigns being incorrect, I understand that almost every one of the "examples" used in union TV advertising have been incorrect, and is why none of these ads have continued to be shown.

I love this nonsense. What will the boss's ad campaign say ?
How about this, Just because we can screw you, Doesnt mean we will. LETS GIVE WORKCHOICES A GO. There is nothing dishonest about the ACTU ad campaign. What upsets Baume and his bretheren is the width and depth of the whole campaign. The polls are accurate. The only worry for workers now is that the ALP will go to water.

Michael Baume criticises "unions attempting to justify their spending of multi-millions of members' money on a political campaign (that by their own admission about 30 per cent of unionists do not support)." No criticism of the Federal Government that spent between $40 and $60 million of taxpayers' money on a political campaign for WorkChoices that about 65 per cent of voters don't support. A campaign that was such a dismal failure that the Feds have buried the WorkChoices name and are going to rebrand it.

The Feds haven't even worked out what to call WorkChoices, but don't worry, there'll be plenty of public money to "inform" us when they do. Presumably a big splashy campaign, coiniciding nicely (but no doubt accidentally) with the Federal election.

Why would employer groups be bothered to spend their money? Voters know that WorkChoices was drafted by (and for) employers. Why remind them?